Sure they do... gun control is one of the few things you can count on.  Since it what maintains power.  You don't want to let guns be around, because well... as a corrupt official you don't want to be shot by guns.

As for the data, it's based on estimates... as for the graph, it's completely meaningless because of culture differences.  It's just worth noting the trend to mention just how much the data is massaged to get the "right" results... as the data goes against the presense in a "control for nothing" or "control for as much as possible."

I'm pretty sure everybody acknowledges the tradgedy of the shootings.  The problem is that some people are pointing the figure at guns and diverting all of the attention there, when guns aren't the issue.  So I don't see why you'd blame him for any of that.

Instead, what should be asked is... why have their suddenly been so many mass shootings the last 2-3 years?   Random Chance?  A rise in psycopathic brain patterns? 

The problem is really very easy to see in this specific situation, and it's a problem being overlooked.  A kid, who was afraid he was going to be committed because he was autistic stole his parents guns, killed both of them, and shot 20 kids, and some adults. 

Now why this is a murder is clear... why he shot the unrelated people though... THAT is the question.  

The reason why Americans *need* guns so much, or at least originally, has to do with more than self-defense and property defense, but now that they're out there it is a plus.  It is the only way the federalist system is preserved, and it's precisely why we don't have a larger imbalance of powers than we have now betweeen the peoples/states and the federal government. Furthermore, not many people are victims of crime, but I certainly want to make sure that when/if I am there is something I can do about it. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

• deterring tyrannical government;
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system.

Nah, most of these is just a load of bollocks, more guns won't even remotely help in half of these situations today. Typical constitutional mythos, though all (proper) nations have them, so I guess it's fair not to debate those points with the believers.

Truth be said... lowering firearms avaliablity (as it's what most people understand by "gun control", though it's not necessarily the same) not gonna help to lower homicide rate in the US as it's relatively low as it is (it's a god damn police state, what do you want?), though not a reason for other nations to make firearms more availble. Correlations in real life are more complext things than two sample exponential correlation pictured above, not counting social causes might lead to the serious problem.

Which ones specifically? The military has had polls on whether or not they'd disarm civlians if told to, and the overwhelming majority said no. It seems quite clear that the military is on the side of the armed peoples. So the government has no military power against the people of whom they derive their political power. That leaves corruption. It exists quite extensively in all levels of governments, and throughout history (even recently) lawful citizens have held such official accountable. This is in addition to sheriffs holding our federal official accountable in their counties, which a sheriff is the highest executive official within. 

Now invasions rarely happen, but if we had an extensive militia I'm sure we wouldn't have a border problem. It's just a failure of the people's duty to uphold the second ammendment that has not enabled this. 

Suppressing insurrection, we see this with riots during hurricane disasters. The unofficial militia groups help the official millitia (national guard) to maintain peace and lawful action.

The fifth one is quite clear in communities that can't afford police stations. 

The last one is becoming more and more popular as the U.S declines. We're seeing plenty of unofficial militias. Ideally, we'd have something akin to Switzerland, but more lenient. 

So they're certainly not  "a load of bollocks." 

I've marked the most bollockish (is there such a word?) reasons. The rest are generally ok, but there're other means. The stronges of all is self-defence.

//Though the most valid reason to have a gun is hunting :D

I was mostly interested in a reason WHY they're "bollocks." I can already see censorship in Western Europe, for example, and there's nobody opposing this because the people have no physical power to cement their vote. I think guns are probably the primary reason the U.S government does things carefully and slowly, instead of enacting quick policies. Again, repelling invasion can be very possible as the border problem becomes more and more out of control. Even if it's not a military invasion, it's still an invading group of peoples who unlawfully enter our country. And who knows, it might not be useful currently, but one can't predict the future and once you rid of a liberty it is almost impossible to return. It's our duty to maintain such rights for our posterity. 

Then ask "why" not "which" :) and didn't I say I don't want to debate those point with the believers?

Just for fun:

-- Tyranny = you said military won't disarm the civilians, well, that's logical, for this purpose you have police, could see National Guard joining the fun; what is tyranny anyway? how you differ if it's already a turanny and the day before it wasn't.
-- Invasion = just laughable if those aren't Mexicans and entire personell of USBP have massive food poisoning being busy with other... things (given the number of them crossed the board already, it's probably too late anyway).
-- Insurrection = better chances for guns to cause insurrection, or at least make it worse... you know, it kinda contradicts "tyranny" point :) people say successful rebelion -- revolution (against tyranny, of course), unsuccessful -- insurrection (and suppressed one mind you).

1. The police are even less likely to do so. In small towns especially they like to remain autonomous over their juristiction, meaning no assistance to enforce an unconstitutional act described by the federal government, or even a state government. Furthermore, the number of civilians with weapons outnumbers the police by a magnitude more than 100. Police are already understaffed to fight criminals. Imagine if all gun owners refused, akin to prohibition era rates of alcohol usage. The police wouldn't be able to do anything without the military, and the military has already explicitly stated they would not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of their family, friends, and countrymen. In this case, tyranny is to enforce unconstitutional acts and to limit the fundamental freedoms of the people as delineated by the articles and bill of rights of our U.S constitution.  For example, to many the current NDAA act is a violation of due process of law because it enables congress to detain citizens indefinitely without any trial by jury. If they started to enforce this on a massive scale, it would be tyranny and quite recognizably so. 

2. I don't know what you're trying to say here. 

3. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution, which derives itself from the power invested in the people. The people produce a few levels of government to enforce create laws, and enforce these laws within the limits of this constitution.  Now I agree its a fine line, as many would say the confederate states were justified in secession. YET, the constitution does not give a single sentence on the point of secession and hence the union as well as the individual autonomy of each state are the primary concerns (otherwise we would have stuck with the Articles of Confederation.) This insurrection is different, because its a segmentation of the people, who tend to be synonomous with the states. Fighting against tyranny is an entirely different matter because it a conflict of the people with the government. Basically, the founding fathers, especially Thomas Paine describe the desynchronization of the government and society. They are not equal and not the same, in fact, Thomas Paine even explains their different origins. In one case you have a society spliting, in the other case you have a revolution ( a change in the government of a society.) It's hard to explain, but if you read the works of the founding fathers it's quite succint.

For example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

"Ruby Ridge was the site of a deadly confrontation and siege in northern Idaho in 1992 because Randy Weaver refused to be an informant for the federal government. It involved Weaver, his family, Weaver's friend Kevin Harris, and agents of the United States Marshals Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation. It resulted in the death of Weaver's son Sammy, his wife Vicki, and Deputy US Marshal William Francis Degan.
At the subsequent federal criminal trial of Weaver and Harris, Weaver's attorney Gerry Spence made accusations of "criminal wrongdoing" against every agency involved in the incident: the FBI, USMS, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for Idaho. At the completion of the trial, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility formed a Ruby Ridge Task Force to investigate Spence's charges. The 1994 Task Force report was released in redacted form by Lexis Counsel Connect and raised questions about the conduct and policy of all the agencies.
Public outcry over Ruby Ridge and the subsequent Waco siege involving many of the same agencies and even the same personnel fueled the widening of the militia movement. To answer public questions about Ruby Ridge, the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information held a total of 14 days of hearings between September 6 and October 19, 1995, and subsequently issued a report calling for reforms in federal law enforcement to prevent a repeat of Ruby Ridge and to restore public confidence in federal law enforcement."